Help

This forum is for discussing specific Wikipedia editors, editing patterns, and general efforts by those editors to influence or direct content in ways that might not be in keeping with Wikipedia policy. Please source your claims and provide links where appropriate. For a glossary of terms frequently used when discussing Wikipedia and related projects, please refer to Wikipedia:Glossary.

Why on earth are you "outing" ALM scientist? He's not an administrator, isn't part of any cabal, and has done you no wrong.

I think that not everyone is on the same wavelength about this. ALM scientist has done me no wrong. Neither have I done him wrong.

Come on, dude. You've made it very clear that you mean to get back at Wikipedia, and this list is meant to be part of that. I accept that this tactic is justified in some instances and necessary in others, but to pretend that you're not meaning any harm here is completely insincere.

Really, you don't think you're doing people harm by posting their contact information?

ALM never told me why he changed his username, and I never asked - who needs to ask? Most rational people chose to keep their real names out of Wikipedia flame wars, and who can blame them? So now you come around and sing, "nya nya nya nya nya nya, I know your real name!" and you don't think there is something fundamentally unprovoked and uncalled for here?

Go ahead and get back at Wikipedia, but for God's sake, choose your targets. Brandt is already firing wildly in all directions, including people who are on the right side of bio issue and have advocated deleting his, but at least they're administrators. You've really established a new low here by including people who aren't even arguably responsible for what happens on the site besides their own contributions.

Interesting but FT2 is certainly not Ian Limbach. Limbach is based in Europe, FT2 is not. FT2 is full-time NLP trainer and not journalist.

Are you sure? As you can see from Special:Contributions/81.86.166.33, in 2004-2005, it looks like he was editing from the U.K. In addition to the IP editing FT2's user page, it also edited German Shepherd Dog, Zoophilia and Srinivasa Ramanujan, all in proximity to FT2.

I don't think we should care that the Wikipedian in question is a Wobbly and in my opinion, it is not useful information. I think FLIPSIDE knows what I'm talking about.

Yes I do. And it *should* not matter -- if one can be reasonably expected to rise above superficial political beliefs and act in good faith.

QUOTE(proabivouac @ Today, 2:54pm)

Come on, dude. You've made it very clear that you mean to get back at Wikipedia, and this list is meant to be part of that. I accept that this tactic is justified in some instances and necessary in others, but to pretend that you're not meaning any harm here is completely insincere.

Really, you don't think you're doing people harm by posting their contact information?

I mean to bring the heat to Wikipedia as a whole, specifically the top of Wikipedia, give it a fever, what have you, until it burns out the IrishGuy infection, but not by harming individual users. I don't see this as using a scattergun against innocent bystanders. I see this as taking a few steps to change the entire Wikipedia playing board through medium sized, holistic, and not overreaching tactics.

People should keep their real names out of Wikipedia flame wars. There should be no Wikipedia flame wars. I think it's called for to place a universal price tag on anonymous flaming. I agree with choosing targets. I have chosen the target of Wikipedia as transnational state or as Civ. The target was preselected from the onset of the project at MIT, and the first person kicked off Wikipedia back when it was a little blob at MIT became the first Troll/Sockpuppet of WP. I advocate a much less craven and much more firm and total alteration of the community over there as the first participant to officially be willing to Othello flip every single Wikipedian if necessary. It's not out of big headedness, it's out of determination to participate with will.

Come on, dude. You've made it very clear that you mean to get back at Wikipedia, and this list is meant to be part of that. I accept that this tactic is justified in some instances and necessary in others, but to pretend that you're not meaning any harm here is completely insincere.

Really, you don't think you're doing people harm by posting their contact information?

I mean to bring the heat to Wikipedia as a whole, specifically the top of Wikipedia, give it a fever, what have you, until it burns out the IrishGuy infection, but not by harming individual users. I don't see this as using a scattergun against innocent bystanders. I see this as taking a few steps to change the entire Wikipedia playing board through medium sized, holistic, and not overreaching tactics.

It doesn't really matter what you intended by doing this. The fact is, you are invading people's privacy, when many of them have done nothing but be associated with Wikipedia.

It doesn't really matter what you intended by doing this. The fact is, you are invading people's privacy, when many of them have done nothing but be associated with Wikipedia.

That is a nonsequitor. People who wish to remain private do not pose as editors of an encyclopedia. Every encyclopedia I have ever purchased has listed the names and credentials of the contributors. If we may move off the ethics issue back to the existential issue: Either Wikipedia is an Encyclopedia, or it is a Role Playing Game.

It doesn't really matter what you intended by doing this. The fact is, you are invading people's privacy, when many of them have done nothing but be associated with Wikipedia.

This is a question I asked once. Who empowered Wikipedia to invade the privacy of BLPs? Why do BLPs have to endure an article but any external scrutiny of the editors is always considered a bad and dangerous thing that hurts people in real life?

"Why are Wikipedia editors special creatures that are entitled to protections for their privacy that does not exist for the article subjects in Wikipedia?"

It doesn't really matter what you intended by doing this. The fact is, you are invading people's privacy, when many of them have done nothing but be associated with Wikipedia.

That is a nonsequitor. People who wish to remain private do not pose as editors of an encyclopedia. Every encyclopedia I have ever purchased has listed the names and credentials of the contributors. If we may move off the ethics issue back to the existential issue: Either Wikipedia is an Encyclopedia, or it is a Role Playing Game.

Actually no, let's stay with the ethics issue for a minute. Why is Vox Humana's name up there? Why is Risker's, for that matter? For that matter, why am *I* up there? All you did was copy Daniel Brandt's info, which he's already taken down. Right now it's starting to look like you just want to get at WMF by hurting as many contributors as possible, regardless of whether they're admins, BLP violators, whatever. Fair game in your "battle" against WP.

I look through the list and find that it's riddled with inaccuracies, downright disinformation ( ) and editors who have retired long ago. Right now, what you've done, IMO, is created a big long tl;dr list of WP editors simply because you wanna.

"Why are Wikipedia editors special creatures that are entitled to protections for their privacy that does not exist for the article subjects in Wikipedia?"

That question in italics is the thing no one can ever answer.

I agree with that question. And it is a question that Wittgenstein would say arises from a particular misunderstanding of language. After all, editors can be in fact entirely composed of computer programs. I use my Hypertext Editor to edit webpages. Why should (the deletionist) Wikipedia editors be treated differently than the dispassionate programmatic line altering functions they believe themselves to be? Under a 501 nonprofit, come one come all, user editable scenario, why shouldn't editors be treated as software offered under GNU and be decompiled, reverse engineered, cloned, and or improved?

QUOTE(Alison @ Wed 2nd April 2008, 5:56pm)

Actually no, let's stay with the ethics issue for a minute. Why is Vox Humana's name up there? Why is Risker's, for that matter? For that matter, why am *I* up there? All you did was copy Daniel Brandt's info, which he's already taken down. Right now it's starting to look like you just want to get at WMF by hurting as many contributors as possible, regardless of whether they're admins, BLP violators, whatever. Fair game in your "battle" against WP.

I look through the list and find that it's riddled with inaccuracies, downright disinformation ( ) and editors who have retired long ago. Right now, what you've done, IMO, is created a big long tl;dr list of WP editors simply because you wanna.

You are free to throw tantrums and make demands. My experience is that that only works if one is an Admin. It certainly doesn't work for a regular user. You are also invited to offer corrections to the onymous information pile. Being a West Coaster at the "pretty color" computer manufacturer, I understand your desire to remain on the ethical question. I am a PC/IBM person, and as you know, we are cold calculating utilitarians.

Actually no, let's stay with the ethics issue for a minute. Why is Vox Humana's name up there? Why is Risker's, for that matter? For that matter, why am *I* up there? All you did was copy Daniel Brandt's info, which he's already taken down. Right now it's starting to look like you just want to get at WMF by hurting as many contributors as possible, regardless of whether they're admins, BLP violators, whatever. Fair game in your "battle" against WP.

I look through the list and find that it's riddled with inaccuracies, downright disinformation ( ) and editors who have retired long ago. Right now, what you've done, IMO, is created a big long tl;dr list of WP editors simply because you wanna.

You are free to throw tantrums and make demands. My experience is that that only works if one is an Admin. It certainly doesn't work for a regular user. You are also invited to offer corrections to the onymous information pile. Being a West Coaster at the "pretty color" computer manufacturer, I understand your desire to remain on the ethical question. I am a PC/IBM person, and as you know, we are cold calculating utilitarians.

All I'm doing is asking questions, just you're not answering is all. Where have I been making demands, hm?

Nice dig about my employer, too It sounds like you're saying "neener neener. I know something abouuuuut you!!". Is that where all this is at? A power trip?

"Why are Wikipedia editors special creatures that are entitled to protections for their privacy that does not exist for the article subjects in Wikipedia?"

That question in italics is the thing no one can ever answer.

I agree with that question. And it is a question that Wittgenstein would say arises from a particular misunderstanding of language. After all, editors can be in fact entirely composed of computer programs. I use my Hypertext Editor to edit webpages. Why should (the deletionist) Wikipedia editors be treated differently than the dispassionate programmatic line altering functions they believe themselves to be? Under a 501 nonprofit, come one come all, user editable scenario, why shouldn't editors be treated as software offered under GNU and be decompiled, reverse engineered, cloned, and or improved?

This is a simplification into the pointlessly fancy speak and gibberish that made me want to contribute less and less here. It's got nothing to do with retaliation.

It's a simple question: why and how did Wikipedia editors get this special status that attempts to out them are "IRL" hurtful and dangerous, but the same principle in reverse does not apply to BLP subjects?

It's simple. What law or social contract awarded those with "in good standing" Wikipedia accounts a unique social status and/or priviledge?

The website that Flipside gives for Andrew Morrow has a weird, extensively long page about Alison under her real name. There are only two reasons he would even have her last name, he could have done the research himself, or used Daniel Brandt's or FLIPSIDE's information on her to get her real name.

It doesn't really matter what you intended by doing this. The fact is, you are invading people's privacy, when many of them have done nothing but be associated with Wikipedia.

That is a nonsequitor. People who wish to remain private do not pose as editors of an encyclopedia. Every encyclopedia I have ever purchased has listed the names and credentials of the contributors. If we may move off the ethics issue back to the existential issue: Either Wikipedia is an Encyclopedia, or it is a Role Playing Game.

So why am I on that list, then? I have never made any secret whatever of my identity, it's right there on my user page, so putting me on an outing list sort of misses the point doesn't it? I think you're just a guy with a grudge rather than a noble crusader...

It doesn't really matter what you intended by doing this. The fact is, you are invading people's privacy, when many of them have done nothing but be associated with Wikipedia.

This is a question I asked once. Who empowered Wikipedia to invade the privacy of BLPs? Why do BLPs have to endure an article but any external scrutiny of the editors is always considered a bad and dangerous thing that hurts people in real life?

"Why are Wikipedia editors special creatures that are entitled to protections for their privacy that does not exist for the article subjects in Wikipedia?"

That question in italics is the thing no one can ever answer.

Article subjects should get the same protections, if they are nonpublic figures. But repeating every bad thing that Wikipedia does isn't going to help.

It's a simple question: why and how did Wikipedia editors get this special status that attempts to out them are "IRL" hurtful and dangerous, but the same principle in reverse does not apply to BLP subjects?

It's simple. What law or social contract awarded those with "in good standing" Wikipedia accounts a unique social status and/or priviledge?

It's a simple question with an easy answer: Wikipedia should not invade the privacy of BLP subjects. Wikipedia contributors do not have a unique right, or any right, to fire at real people's real names and real lives from behind the safety of pseudonymity.

If we may move off the ethics issue back to the existential issue: Either Wikipedia is an Encyclopedia, or it is a Role Playing Game.

It might be something else. One of the things it is, is an attempt to be an automatic writing machine for the benefit of Jimbo Wales, which extracts talent from the maximal number of brains, while deliberately encouraging them to be as masked and anonymous as possible, in order that the credit for their work shall not adhere to any of them, but will filter up to give glory to Jimbo.

You want to know one purpose of NPOV and NOR? To try to disguise the fact that any kind of writing is a creative and original act, which deserves credit intrinsically. At Wikipedia, they pretend that what's being done there is different, that it is completely unoriginal and sourced elsewhere, so that nobody can attempt to claim it. Originality is atomized, delocalized, denied, and deprecated. What's left is GFDL'd. Ordinary editors, which is to say content writers, are given no repect, and all power and authority is transferred to people who manage writers, as a farmer would manage cows who give milk.

You want to know why this setup harms people though biographizing them? That's mostly a side effect. If it's just an automatic writing machine for Jimbo, he can have all the credit without any responsibility. This much is like corporations and institutions everywhere (NASA managers no doubt see their engineers that way-- see decades of Dilbert Cartoons). Is a given Wiki article crappy? Don't blame Jimbo-- he didn't write it. Is it pretty good? Well, Thank Jimbo for setting up the software to create it. If the article happens to be a bio, well-- see above. The machine and overall product of it is far more important to Jimbo than any small bits which don't work out with the simple rules.